Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

According to several sources Czech T-72M4CZ will go through another modernization step (we have only 30 standard + 3 command tanks). The Turms-T FCS is to be modernized and the thermal cameras will be replaced with new ones. I haven't found more anywhere.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Hard to tell what kind of ammunition was used and if turrets were penetrated/where/how.

T-80U due to retarded design of special armour cavity was penetrated at least 1 time, you can see it on photo, and penetration look like old soviet shitty APFSDS BM-15-22-26(you can see where tungsten core went out)

Link to post

Share on other sites

T-80U due to retarded design of special armour cavity was penetrated at least 1 time, you can see it on photo, and penetration look like old soviet shitty APFSDS BM-15-22-26(you can see where tungsten core went out)

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

That mud is serious... You need proper tanks for that job! Objekt-279! Btw, it would be good if such vehicles would be restored and returned to running condition instead of shitty T-34s wich are plentiful and boring as hell... Maybe a kickstarter project for restoring the Objekt-770? Anyone? Or maybe a serial produced machine, like a T-10M?

Similar Content

ATTENTION DUELISTS:
@Toxn
@LostCosmonaut
@Lord_James
@DIADES
@Datengineerwill
@Whatismoo
@Kal
@Zadlo
@Xoon
detailed below is the expected format of the final submission.
The date is set as Wednesday the 19th of June at 23:59 GMT.
Again, incomplete designs may be submitted as they are and will be judged as seen fit.

e. FCS- relevant systems, relevant sights for operating the weapon and so on.

f. Neat features.

3. Secondary weapon- Similar format to primary. Tertiary and further weapons- likewise.

4. Link to Appendix 3- Weapon system magic. This is where you explain how all the special tricks related to the armament that aren’t obviously available using Soviet 1961 tech work, and expand to your heart’s content on extimated performance and how these estimates were reached.

B. Optics:

1. Primary gunsight- type, associated trickery.

2. Likewise for any and all other optics systems installed, in no particular order.

C. FCS:

1. List of component systems, their purpose and the basic system architecture.

2. Link to Appendix 3- weapon system magic, if you have long explanations about the workings of the system.

Fightability:

1. List vehicle features which improve its fightability and useability.

Additonal Features:

Feel free to list more features as you see fit, in more categories.

Free expression zone: Let out your inner Thetan to fully impress the world with the fruit of your labor. Kindly spoiler this section if it’s very long.

By order of Her Gracious and Serene Majesty Queen Diane Feinstein the VIII

The Dianetic People’s Republic of California

Anno Domini 2250

SUBJ: RFP for new battle tank

1. Background.
As part of the War of 2248 against the Perfidious Cascadians, great deficiencies were discovered in the Heavy tank DF-1. As detailed in report [REDACTED], the DF-1 was quite simply no match for the advanced weaponry developed in secret by the Cascadian entity. Likewise, the DF-1 has fared poorly in the fighting against the heretical Mormonhideen, who have developed many improvised weapons capable of defeating the armor on this vehicle, as detailed in report [REDACTED]. The Extended War on the Eastern Front has stalled for want of sufficient survivable firepower to push back the Mormon menace beyond the Colorado River south of the Vegas Crater.
The design team responsible for the abject failure that was the DF-1 have been liquidated, which however has not solved the deficiencies of the existing vehicle in service. Therefore, a new vehicle is required, to meet the requirements of the People’s Auditory Forces to keep the dream of our lord and prophet alive.

Over the past decade, the following threats have presented themselves:

A. The Cascadian M-2239 “Norman” MBT and M-8 light tank

Despite being approximately the same size, these 2 vehicles seem to share no common components, not even the primary armament! Curiously, it appears that the lone 120mm SPG specimen recovered shares design features with the M-8, despite being made out of steel and not aluminum like the light tank. (based on captured specimens from the battle of Crater Lake, detailed in report [REDACTED]).
Both tanks are armed with high velocity guns.

B. The Cascadian BGM-1A/1B/1C/1D ATGM

Fitted on a limited number of tank destroyers, several attack helicopters, and (to an extent) man-portable, this missile system is the primary Cascadian anti-armor weapon other than their armored forces. Intelligence suggests that a SACLOS version (BGM-1C) is in LRIP, with rumors of a beam-riding version (BGM-1D) being developed.

Both warheads penetrate approximately 6 cone diameters.

C. Deseret tandem ATR-4 series
Inspired by the Soviet 60/105mm tandem warhead system from the late 80s, the Mormon nation has manufactured a family of 2”/4” tandem HEAT warheads, launched from expendable short-range tube launchers, dedicated AT RRs, and even used as the payload of the JS-1 MCLOS vehicle/man-portable ATGM.
Both warheads penetrate approximately 5 cone diameters.

D. Cascadian HEDP 90mm rocket
While not a particularly impressive AT weapon, being of only middling diameter and a single shaped charge, the sheer proliferation of this device has rendered it a major threat to tanks, as well as lighter vehicles. This weapon is available in large numbers in Cascadian infantry squads as “pocket artillery”, and there are reports of captured stocks being used by the Mormonhideen.
Warhead penetrates approximately 4 cone diameters.

E. Deseret 40mm AC/ Cascadian 35mm AC
These autocannon share broadly similar AP performance, and are considered a likely threat for the foreseeable future, on Deseret armored cars, Cascadian tank destroyers, and likely also future IFVs.

F. IEDs

In light of the known resistance of tanks to standard 10kg anti-tank mines, both the Perfidious Cascadians and the Mormonhideen have taken to burying larger anti-tank A2AD weaponry. The Cascadians have doubled up some mines, and the Mormons have regularly buried AT mines 3, 4, and even 5 deep.

2. General guidelines:

A. Solicitation outline:
In light of the differing requirements for the 2 theaters of war in which the new vehicle is expected to operate, proposals in the form of a field-replaceable A-kit/B-kit solution will be accepted.

B. Requirements definitions:
The requirements in each field are given in 3 levels- Threshold, Objective, and Ideal.
Threshold is the minimum requirement to be met; failure to reach this standard may greatly disadvantage any proposal.

Objective is the threshold to be aspired to; it reflects the desires of the People’s Auditory Forces Armored Branch, which would prefer to see all of them met. At least 70% must be met, with bonus points for any more beyond that.

Ideal specifications are the maximum of which the armored forces dare not even dream. Bonus points will be given to any design meeting or exceeding these specifications.

C. All proposals must accommodate the average 1.7m high Californian recruit.

For light vehicles (less than 40 tons), not less than 25mm RHA/45mm Aluminum base structure

For heavy vehicles (70 tons and above), not less than 45mm RHA/80mm Aluminum base structure.
Intermediate values for intermediate vehicles may be chosen as seen fit.
Non-structural passive materials:

iii. HHA

Steel, approximately 500 BHN through-hardened. Approximately twice as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 25mm.
Density- 7.8g/cm^3.

Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 10 cm air gap.
Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette.

Reactive armor materials:

ix. ERA-light

A sandwich of 3mm/3mm/3mm steel-explodium-steel.
Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.

Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).

x. ERA-heavy

A sandwich of 15mm steel/3mm explodium/9mm steel.
Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).

xi. NERA-light

A sandwich of 6mm steel/6mm rubber/ 6mm steel.
Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.

xii. NERA-heavy

A sandwich of 30mm steel/6m rubber/18mm steel.
Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.

The details of how to calculate armor effectiveness will be detailed in Appendix 1.

b. Firepower

i. 2A46 equivalent tech- pressure limits, semi-combustible cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USSR in the year 1960.

v. The general issue GPMG for the People’s Auditory Forces is the PKM. The standard HMG is the DShK.

c. Mobility

i. Engines tech level:

1. MB 838 (830 HP)

2. AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP)

3. Kharkov 5TD (600 HP)

ii. Power density should be based on the above engines. Dimensions are available online, pay attention to cooling of 1 and 3 (water cooled).

iii. Power output broadly scales with volume, as does weight. Trying to extract more power from the same size may come at the cost of reliability (and in the case of the 5TD, it isn’t all that reliable in the first place).

iv. There is nothing inherently wrong with opposed piston or 2-stroke engines if done right.

d. Electronics

i. LRFs- unavailable

ii. Thermals-unavailable

iii. I^2- limited

3. Operational Requirements.

The requirements are detailed in the appended spreadsheet.

4. Submission protocols.

Submission protocols and methods will be established in a follow-on post, nearer to the relevant time.

Shortly after Jeeps_Guns_Tanks started his substantial foray into documenting the development and variants of the M4, I joked on teamspeak with Wargaming's The_Warhawk that the next thing he ought to do was a similar post on the T-72.

Haha. I joke. I am funny man.

The production history of the T-72 is enormously complicated. Tens of thousands were produced; it is probably the fourth most produced tank ever after the T-54/55, T-34 and M4 sherman.

For being such an ubiquitous vehicle, it's frustrating to find information in English-language sources on the T-72. Part of this is residual bad information from the Cold War era when all NATO had to go on were blurry photos from May Day parades:

As with Soviet aircraft, NATO could only assign designations to obviously externally different versions of the vehicle. However, they were not necessarily aware of internal changes, nor were they aware which changes were post-production modifications and which ones were new factory variants of the vehicle. The NATO designations do not, therefore, necessarily line up with the Soviet designations. Between different models of T-72 there are large differences in armor protection and fire control systems. This is why anyone arguing T-72 vs. X has completely missed the point; you need to specify which variant of T-72. There are large differences between them!

Another issue, and one which remains contentious to this day, is the relation between the T-64, T-72 and T-80 in the Soviet Army lineup. This article helps explain the political wrangling which led to the logistically bizarre situation of three very similar tanks being in frontline service simultaneously, but the article is extremely biased as it comes from a high-ranking member of the Ural plant that designed and built the T-72. Soviet tank experts still disagree on this; read this if you have some popcorn handy. Talking points from the Kharkov side seem to be that T-64 was a more refined, advanced design and that T-72 was cheap filler, while Ural fans tend to hold that T-64 was an unreliable mechanical prima donna and T-72 a mechanically sound, mass-producible design.

So, if anyone would like to help make sense of this vehicle, feel free to post away. I am particularly interested in:

-What armor arrays the different T-72 variants use. Diagrams, dates of introduction, and whether the array is factory-produced or a field upgrade of existing armor are pertinent questions.

-Details of the fire control system. One of the Kharkov talking points is that for most of the time in service, T-64 had a more advanced fire control system than contemporary T-72 variants. Is this true? What were the various fire control systems in the T-64 and T-72, and what were there dates of introduction? I am particularly curious when Soviet tanks got gun-follows-sight FCS.

-Export variants and variants produced outside the Soviet Union. How do they stack up? Exactly what variant(s) of T-72 were the Iraqis using in 1991?

-WTF is up with the T-72's transmission? How does it steer and why is its reverse speed so pathetically low?

Hello, my friends and Kharkovites, take a sit and be ready for your brains to start to work - we are going to tell you a terrible secret of how to tell apart Soviet tanks that actually works like GLORIOUS T-80 and The Mighty T-72 from Kharkovites attempt to make a tank - the T-64. Many of capitalists Westerners have hard time understanding what tank is in front of them, even when they know smart words like "Kontakt-5" ERA. Ignoramus westerners!

Because you are all were raised in several hundreds years old capitalism system all of you are blind consumer dummies, that need big noisy labels and shiny colorful things to be attached to product X to be sold to your ignorant heads and wallets, thats why we will need to start with basics. BASICS, DA? First - how to identify to which tank "family" particular MBT belongs to - to T-64 tree, or T-72 line, or Superior T-80 development project, vehicles that don't have big APPLE logo on them for you to understand what is in front of you. And how you can do it in your home without access to your local commie tank nerd?

Easy! Use this Putin approved guide "How to tell appart different families of Soviet and Russian tanks from each other using simple and easy to spot external features in 4 steps: a guide for ignorant western journalists and chairborn generals to not suck in their in-depth discussions on the Internet".

Chapter 1: Where to look, what to see.

T-64 - The Ugly Kharkovite tank that doesn't work

We will begin with T-64, a Kharkovite attempt to make a tank, which was so successful that Ural started to work on their replacement for T-64 known as T-72. Forget about different models of T-64, let's see what is similar between all of them.

T-72 - the Mighty weapon of Workers and Peasants to smash westerners

Unlike tank look-alike, made by Kharkovites mad mans, T-72 is true combat tank to fight with forces of evil like radical moderate barbarians and westerners. Thats why we need to learn how identify it from T-64 and you should remember it's frightening lines!

The GLORIOUS T-80 - a Weapon to Destroy and Conquer bourgeois countries and shatter westerners army

And now we are looking at the Pride of Party and Soviet army, a true tank to spearhead attacks on decadent westerners, a tank that will destroy countries by sucking their military budgets and dispersing their armies in vortex of air, left from high-speed charge by the GLORIOUS T-80!